If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

did you noticed that it hasn't yet a stable full feature implementation? why should anybody use it if it wasn't ready yet? your whol argumentation is absurd. the. standard has just been finished so it is no wonder that it hasn't been used yet.

because google doesn't give a fuck they fought as hell to get it finished and free for all, and hurried to come up with afast and stable first reference implementaion that is usable.

*sigh*

you argue that a codec that just apeared on the game field has not much use... >.>

As for hardware, Nvidia has hardware support for VP8 in Tegra 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L3r23zLOsk), Intel has hardware support for VP8 in Bay Trail, Marvell has SoCs with VP8 support, etc. WebRTC support is a big driver for the hardware side these days.

Originally Posted by 89c51

Monetized videos sometimes play but its probably because someone forgets to flip a switch preventing to do so or they are testing something. Soon after they finish what they do you get the This needs flash message.

Use YouTube Center (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...outube-center/) and all videos will play without Flash. The only problem you'll have is that following the links to videos at the end of a video or on the video's page will sometimes fail to load the HTML5 version correctly. In those cases just reload the page and it will then work.

Could this be used to block monetized videos?

While vp9 is new we have vp8 for quite some time and noone has been giving a fuck about it. Remind me if google used its power (ie youtube) to promote webm and give it more presence.

Monetized videos sometimes play but its probably because someone forgets to flip a switch preventing to do so or they are testing something. Soon after they finish what they do you get the This needs flash message.

As a rule I refuse to watch videos with preroll or overlay advertising. To me, an implementaton that automatcally breaks and prevents monetized content from loading is a bandwidth saver. I only connect to youtube via Torbrowser (from a special Youtube-only directory install used for nothing else) as I deeply distrust Google and all their tracking, I look forward to Torbrowser reaching the point that they use a new enough version of Firefox to use gstreamer for H264 so flash (dangerous in Tor) can be uninstalled from my machines entirely.

I do not monetize my videos, and I do not want to watch monetized videos posted by others.

I would prefer that monteized video not be supported at all

Originally Posted by erendorn

What you describe suggest that you do want to watch monetized videos, but do not want to participate in the monetization itself, which is entirely different.

Generally, if I encounter any video with ads on ANY site, I either close the window or hit the back button-fast. I actually get agitated from Flash ads and I also resent the hypocrisy when people who say they are anticapitalists, filming anticapitalist protests, monetize their work selling ads for big corporations. On the other hand, it was really funny when Ustream had to ban ads from an Occupy ustream because advertisers were whining about the content. They got a totally ad-free channel as a result!

Monetized video (by poster) implies that the author is after money and that's the only reason the video was posted. Monetized on Youtube over 3ed party content is an affront to the original poster, the threat of this was one reason I abandoned an old Youtube account. The other was that the degree of scanning they use to resist the formation of backup accounts (against "strikes) implies browser fingerprinting, which I consider a malicious attack and a threat to all viewers.

One of my friends had to preroll his videos with a notice that any advertising added by Youtube was over his objection. Youtube does NOT offer an option to veto 3ed-party monetization and delete the video of their scanners detect 3ed party music. Only Youtube does this, uner the DCMA they could take no action w/o a DCMA takedown notice, but Google is so big they feared Congre$$ would change the law.

Generally, if I encounter any video with ads on ANY site, I either close the window or hit the back button-fast. I actually get agitated from Flash ads and I also resent the hypocrisy when people who say they are anticapitalists, filming anticapitalist protests, monetize their work selling ads for big corporations. On the other hand, it was really funny when Ustream had to ban ads from an Occupy ustream because advertisers were whining about the content. They got a totally ad-free channel as a result!

Monetized video (by poster) implies that the author is after money and that's the only reason the video was posted. Monetized on Youtube over 3ed party content is an affront to the original poster, the threat of this was one reason I abandoned an old Youtube account. The other was that the degree of scanning they use to resist the formation of backup accounts (against "strikes) implies browser fingerprinting, which I consider a malicious attack and a threat to all viewers.

One of my friends had to preroll his videos with a notice that any advertising added by Youtube was over his objection. Youtube does NOT offer an option to veto 3ed-party monetization and delete the video of their scanners detect 3ed party music. Only Youtube does this, uner the DCMA they could take no action w/o a DCMA takedown notice, but Google is so big they feared Congre$$ would change the law.

Why are you opposed to people and corporations offering goods and servicing against retribution? If you friend does not want adds on his videos, he can maintain his own video streaming server.
Also, complaining about add-supported content on phoronix can be considered hypocrisy too.

Context is the key to hypocrisy

Originally Posted by erendorn

Why are you opposed to people and corporations offering goods and servicing against retribution? If you friend does not want adds on his videos, he can maintain his own video streaming server.
Also, complaining about add-supported content on phoronix can be considered hypocrisy too.

What I am complaining about is the internal inconsistancy of those few who put pro-capitalist ads on anti-capitalist videos like the ones I publish. If I were to run ads for oil companies on a video featuring Earth First! storming a tars sands lobbyist's office, that would be like Phoronix running ads for Windows 8 trash talking the free software Phoronix is all about. It's one thing for Youtube/Liveleak/etc to put their own ads on a video site, entirely another for the owner of the videos to sell additional ads that may be in contradiction to the message of the videos. Poster is responsible for own behavior, not host's behavior.

Also, if I am trying to find a noncommercial activist video of an event I missed for redistribution, commercial/monetized/copyrighted videos become SPAM that slow downs my search for freely redistributable content-and no video streaming site I know of offers a filter to exclude them. Broken playback under HTML5 could be used as an improvised filter by turning Flash off, the subject of my original post here. Hell, just not having to bypass Youtube's efforts to block downloading monetized content can save half an hour or more.

Again, Phoronix content is not in outright contradiction to the content of most ads with the exception of any ads for Windows, iOS, etc that might get sent by an adserver. No activist videographer can say the same. In other words, if I run ads on my political videos, that is hypocrisy, if I made a porn video and sold ads on it that would not be, because the porn would not be carrying a message in opposition to that of the advertisers and my politics have never opposed the self-employed portion of the sex industry. Since it is ads on activist video or 3ed party video of activist events I am discussing, NOT Phoronix's own ads, it is not hypocritical to discuss them here, any more than it would be for Phoronix to give a bad review to an Nvidia product with an AMD ad running on the same page.

As for "people and corporations," I am VERY opposed to the land being owned by the few, to foreclosures and evictions, to drug patents that kill people. to fracking and tar sands that poison land and water hundreds of miles from the extraction sites, to sacrificing liveable climate an the altar of progress, the works! I am quite opposed to runaway capitalism. If you are for it, you should support software patents, ressurecting SOPA, and all those IP-enforcing trade deals and the WTO.

What I am complaining about is the internal inconsistancy of those few who put pro-capitalist ads on anti-capitalist videos like the ones I publish. If I were to run ads for oil companies on a video featuring Earth First! storming a tars sands lobbyist's office, that would be like Phoronix running ads for Windows 8 trash talking the free software Phoronix is all about. It's one thing for Youtube/Liveleak/etc to put their own ads on a video site, entirely another for the owner of the videos to sell additional ads that may be in contradiction to the message of the videos. Poster is responsible for own behavior, not host's behavior.

Uh, are you kidding? This is how this sort of advertising works. Something is mentioned a lot, therefore the ad programs make ads about that. They can't tell whether it is mentioned positively or negatively. You really think ad providers have real humans dedicated to checking whether the automated ad programs might be giving ads against the message of the website? For example anti-alternative medicine websites gets lots of ads for alternative medicine because the website talks about alternative medicine a lot. Of course the ad programs notice that.